In terms of free speech they have the same rights. In terms of their ethical responsibility to the public, or to rely on facts instead of throwing
around insult, they are different.

This same issue is raised whenever Jon Stewart is called on Fox News for a discussion. Stewart lampoons the news media constantly and Fox tries to
then take him to task for things he's said, but Stewart has no journalistic responsibility to the public, he's a comedian.

Denying the importance of the context of these comments is pointless. Of course they have the same right to free speech, they can both say whatever
they want, but in the end Rush is going to have stricter consequences than Maher.

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
In terms of free speech they have the same rights. In terms of their ethical responsibility to the public, or to rely on facts instead of throwing
around insult, they are different.

There is no ethical weight. You are placing one on a pedestal and another in a box; then saying those in the box need more scrutiny.

Denying the importance of the context of these comments is pointless. Of course they have the same right to free speech, they can both say
whatever they want, but in the end Rush is going to have stricter consequences than Maher.

One group is justifying the same use of derogatory terms in the public sphere while condemning them on the other side. That my friend is politics and
all those who are studiously defending one over the other is playing into political hands.

It's no more justified than what Maher called Sarah Palin and for what reason Maher called her that. But all things considered, Maher's term is
slightly more vulgar. I have zero respect for Maher.

Interestingly I have see only justification that Maher's comments were okay in the eyes of the public because of:

A -- He was ethically bound, as a comedian, to make such remarks

B -- His medium is via cable television and that his words are okay for use there -- but the airways are open and need to be censored and regulated.
(never mind that fact that nothing is prohibitive in the Information Age -- heck I could probably find what was just shown on HBO 10 seconds ago on
YouTube.)

C -- We need to ignore the context. It isn't important.

What Mr. Limbaugh said was idiotic no doubt and he will pay via the natural market forces that his show relies on -- or he will thrive from it -- time
will tell.

I wonder if anyone is willing to even bother answering -- Why did the President of the United State's feel that he needed to call and become involved
in the issue? Similar to when his buddy was "accosted" by the officer in Boston. Politics. And all those attacking Rush for his words and
supporting the attack are playing politics.

I agree, the Prez should really have been above the fray on this one, but what would one expect from a community organizer who wants to fundamentally
change a whole country from capitlalist to communist.

Rush will probably thrive as much from his base as Maher thrives on his.

I wonder if there will be pics of the woman wearing a star spangled bikini poolside, or maybe one of her wearing a hot miniskirt...like the ones the
left photoshopped of Sarah.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
Bill Maher insulted an individual.

Rush Limbaugh insulted an entire gender.

Yes...there is a bit of a difference.

You mean this point?

Are you sure you don't want to change your tone and stance a bit? While he is a comedian, the same could be said that Rush is a satirist. Of course,
I am not supporting either of these two idiots...but here are a few gems that Mr. Maher, whom you have been defending has said about the gender that
is woman.

He [Maher] doesn't want women showing their (breast) in public unless they are appropriately packaged for heterosexual male consumption. (removed
erroneous quotes and word usage)

"there's no principle at work here other than being too lazy [in regards to breastfeeding] to either plan ahead or cover up"

In reference to making babies:
"...something a dog could do."

Yep he isn't just slighting an individual there...that would be moms and would-be moms world-wide. Not to mention your daughter(s); you see I can
also make it personal. Do you want to tell your daughter --

"Making babies is no big deal, its something a dog could do. And one more thing honey, when you do have that child, make sure you stay home cause no
one wants to see your breast, unless of course they are ripe for us horny men to devour."

Comedian or not -- he is speaking on a real social issue -- just as Limbaugh was.

And yet there is a real and distinct difference in your examples as well. In the examples you give he never insults the women involved in a personal
manner at all. The first his statement isn't one of you shouldn't be breastfeeding in public, but that if you are in fact breastfeeding when you go
out into public you should in fact have planned for the child's need to be fed and either used a pump so that you had a bottle ready or a blanket or
rag to cover yourself up. He at no point said anything approaching Rush's level. Merely pointed out that by not planning ahead you are in fact being
lazy. He is entitled to have this opinion.

The other is simply just truth, it doesn't take a genius to make a baby. He didn't say women were stupid for having them simply just there is no
intellectual requirement to do so. And in both cases he is not twisting a story to package it into something it is not. Trying to come up with ways to
defend Rush is just not worth the effort.

You are more than welcome to boycott his advertisers and hbo all together if you dont like what he says. Thats the beauty of it. Problem is, for
all the times people like you complain about hypocrisy, it seems more like jealousy over the fact tthat the left seems to be much more successful at
using certains means to put pressure on someone to resign or get pulled off the air. Just an observation and an opinion.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
Bill Maher insulted an individual. Rush Limbaugh insulted an entire gender. Yes...there is a bit of a difference.

Oh you think so? Well I'm a woman and let me tell you, if any woman wants to go out and have lots of sex, then she can pay for her own damn birth
control. I pay for mine. I don't expect others to pay for my sex life. Pay for your own crap people. She's in law school for crying out loud,
and I have to pay her way?????? I don't think so!!!! The answer is simple, get a job and pay for your own recreation yourself, or close your legs
and your mouth about it, cause I'm sick of hearing about it.

The issue here has nothing to do with women's rights to birth control. If you want it, go buy it. It's that simple. No one is holding you back.
No one is telling you that you can't have it. If you can't afford it, then don't expect me to pay for it. That's your problem. Casual Sex
isn't a medical problem, it's recreation. I'm not paying for your beer, your cigarettes, or your sex. None of them are needs. You are not a
person in need. You are lazy and greedy if you think you are entitled to have the rest of us pay for your recreation!!

And.... I am a firm believer in freedom of speach. I don't care what any of these jerks have said about any women on the left or right, politicians
or citizens, it doesn't matter. They are entitled to their opinions. Who cares what Rush said about her, the fact is why the hell should we have to
pay for something that clearly isn't a medical condition????

You would have a better argument if maher had said that women who breast feed in public are lazy and disgusting and should become porn stars if they
want to flash their naked breasts in front of strangers. Or if he said that its as easy to be a mother as it is for a dog.

On the same token, if rush had stuck to his unfactual rant about having to take so much birth control becasue of having so much sex and tax payers
shouldnt have to pay for that, this thread wouldnt even exist. Its all about delivery.

Rush said point blank, that if i, as a woman want insurance to cover my monthly birth control cost (though i refuse to take it for persnal reasons
unless medically necessary) then i am a slut and a prostitute. A far cry from calling someone lazy, which rush does on an almost daily basis and no
one tried to get him off the air for it.

When it is apparently justified. I am not defending what Rush or Maher or anyone else says here but on one hand, it is justified and explained away
where the other just is blasted and there possibly cannot be any justification.

Trying to come up with ways to defend Rush is just not worth the effort.

Sigh -- apparently not jumping on the band-wagon makes me a defender of Mr. Limbaugh. I am merely pointing out how one side is going through great
lengths to justify from one side, while vilify on the other. Both side do it, just one side knows how to politically take advantage of it.

But I get it -- context only matters when we want to continue the narrative. It is okay for Bill Maher to be spout misogynist nonsense I see.

Bill Maher is on cable television, people pay extra to get his show and know what to expect when they turn on the TV.

Rush is governed by the rules that regulate the airwaves, just as Bill Maher would be were he to have a similar type of radio show.

Bill Maher is comfortable to have a smaller audience to protect his freedom of speech. Rush has a much larger audience, and has to abide by the rules
of the medium that he has chosen for his programming.

Originally posted by nunya13
You would have a better argument if maher had said that women who breast feed in public are lazy and disgusting and should become porn stars if they
want to flash their naked breasts in front of strangers. Or if he said that its as easy to be a mother as it is for a dog.

Wait -- by stating that women should only put their breast on display for heterosexual consumption is okay?

On the same token, if rush had stuck to his unfactual rant about having to take so much birth control becasue of having so much sex and tax
payers shouldnt have to pay for that, this thread wouldnt even exist. Its all about delivery.

Rush said point blank, that if i, as a woman want insurance to cover my monthly birth control cost (though i refuse to take it for persnal reasons
unless medically necessary) then i am a slut and a prostitute. A far cry from calling someone lazy, which rush does on an almost daily basis and no
one tried to get him off the air for it.

Agreed and agreed but the audience is also taken into account when it is delivered. Rush is a sensationalist and says tons (we could probably fill up
the whole of the Cloud with his nonsense) of idiotic, shocking, edgy, things.

Interesting, I am not defending what he said. But rather wondering why one is justified and explained away while the other is dragged into the street
for the public tar and feathering. My guess and I will be repeating myself is politics. Plain and simple.

I can care less what either of them say. I am more interested in the defense of one over the other.

You, being a woman who takes birth control, should know that how much sex you have has absolutely nothing to do with how much birth control you take.
The fact that you even said that makes me question if you are really a either a female or on or have ever taken birth control.

For those who are unaware, birth control MUST be taken every single day and is only effective after at least two weeks of CONTINUED use. If you miss
even one day, you can very easily get pregnant. If you do miss a day. You have to double up the next day and have protected sex for the next ten or
so days or you risk getting pregnant. Somif you are ina relationship with smeone and you only have sex once a month, even, you still have to take it
every single day before and after.

Rush actually calculated on the air how many times a woman would have to have sex to spend $3000 during law school. I think he said three times a
day. This goes to show that this guy ACTUALLY thinks that women take birth control every time they have sex. Good grief...

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.